MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2927420920 · doi:10.1353/esc.2002.0053

Imagining Baseball: America’s Pastime and Popular Culture by David McGimpsey

2002· article· en· W2927420920 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
James D. Miller

Notice bibliographique

RevueEnglish studies in Canada · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueAmerican Sports and Literature
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPopular cultureLeagueRomanceCulture of the United StatesArtArt historyHistoryLiteratureMedia studiesSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

REVIEWS Black’s splendid book reminds us that psychobiography, when it is done well, has a most valuable role to play in lit­ erary studies, for it shines an indispensable light on an author’s work that is not available to us in any other way. WORK CITED Tomkins, Silvan. Affect, Imagery, Consciousness, Volume 3, The Neg­ ative Affects: Anger and Fear. New York: Springer, 1991. JOSEPH ADAMSON / McMaster University David McGimpsey. Imagining Baseball: America’s Pastime and Popular Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000. x, 195. Unique among major sports, baseball occupies a special place in American culture. “Like soda pop and the open road,” as David McGimpsey writes in Imagining Baseball, it “has be­ come a celebrated metaphor for America” (1). When it comes to popular culture, this, as McGimpsey acknowledges, is “old news.” Yet baseball’s uniqueness also lies in the hold that it has on America’s “high” culture. What other major league sport could recruit a Commissioner from the ranks of Ivy League Renaissance literature professors? Then again, when Commis­ sioner Bart Giamatti was given to saying things like baseball is “the Romantic Epic of homecoming America sings to itself” (5), what other sport would want to? It is to McGimpsey’s credit that in this wide-ranging “discussion of the tropes in baseball’s cultural products,” he brings a consistently fair and fresh approach to studying both the best and the worst of those “products.” In five chapters and an epilogue, McGimpsey pursues the various meanings and expectations that makers of American culture have brought to baseball. He ranges back and forth be­ tween history and literature as he evaluates the significance of events such as the Chicago Black Sox Scandal and the Pete Rose suspension as well as assessing the work of writers like the leg­ endary Ring Lardner and “perhaps the most idealistic author of 549 ESC 28, 2002 baseball fiction,” W. P. Kinsella (35). These names and events are just a few among many. From Homer and Bart Giamatti to Homer and Bart Simpson, by way of Walt Whitman and Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman, Bernard Malamud, and Bill Cosby, McGimpsey takes the reader on a witty and thought-provoking journey through the highs and lows of baseball at the movies, baseball on TV, and baseball in literature. McGimspey builds his study around the identification and analysis of the familiar tropes of baseball culture and how they are both constructed and challenged in the intertwined worlds of baseball and baseball literature. Perhaps the most common of these tropes, in McGimpsey’s view, is that baseball is “the very best sport, maybe even possessed of some sublime integrity or mystical quality that makes it, among all sports, most appropri­ ate for serious reflection” (4). As such it has attracted countless creators of culture eager to find ways of viewing baseball as more than a game. For many it is the “perfect game,” where Amer­ ican space and time come to play “inside the lines,” insulated from the demands of commerce or the clock. Baseball thus offers a “pastoral retreat” from the world of commerce, or a national backyard where generations of American fathers play meaning­ ful catch with generations of American sons. McGimpsey ex­ plores these fondly stated and endlessly debated claims through extended readings of such major baseball books (as well as of the movies eventually based on them) as Malamud’s The Nat­ ural (1952) and Mark Harris’s Bang the Drum Slowly (1956). In McGimpsey’s view, these studies engage rather than simply endorse the pastoral ideal as they use its “conventions [...] as a way of testing baseball’s claims to a virtuous setting” (76). In these and other readings McGimpsey is especially adept at drawing out the symbiotic tensions and mutual neediness bind­ ing the ballpark to the market place, the (paying) fan to the “product” (whether on the field or on the shelf), and the ma­ terial to the sentimental. In a chapter entitled “Everybody Can Play (Except You): Baseball Fiction and Difference,” McGimpsey dissects another cherished article of the baseball faith: that “the best game” em­ bodies the inter-related ideals of American assimilationism and meritocracy. The...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,820
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,211
Écart entre enseignants0,196 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2002
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEnglish studies in CanadaMême sujetAmerican Sports and LiteratureTravaux en français237 207